He’s going to vote for the presumptive Republican nominee,
Arizona Sen. John McCain.

“Any Catholic who takes the abortion issue seriously will
not vote for Obama,” said Carlin, who served as majority leader of the Rhode
Island Senate in 1989-90.

Pro-life leaders describe Obama — who is now the heavy
favorite to defeat New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic
presidential nomination — as the most
pro-abortion presidential candidate in American history.

“Based on his record he appears to be the most pro-abortion
candidate ever to seek the presidency,” said David O’Steen, executive director
of the National Right to Life Committee. “It’s hard to be more pro-abortion
than Hillary Clinton, but he seems to have managed to do that.”

Obama has promised that his first act as president would be
to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that if enacted would prevent any
federal, state or local government entity from restricting access to abortion.
O’Steen said this indicates that to Obama, “the most important thing facing
America is to promote abortion.”

Both Clinton and Obama currently have 100% ratings from
NARAL for their pro-abortion voting records in the U.S. Senate. But unlike
Clinton, Obama has opposed legislation to protect babies who are born alive
following unsuccessful abortions.

In 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the federal Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act, which was approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate.
Obama was not sworn in as a U.S. Senator until 2005, but he opposed similar
state legislation in 2001 while serving as an Illinois state senator.

Obama argued against such legislation specifically on the
grounds that it might undermine the right to abortion-on-demand throughout
pregnancy.

“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected
by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what
we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the
kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old —
child that was delivered to term,” Obama warned during debate over three state
bills that would have offered protection to babies who are born alive after
unsuccessful abortions. “That determination then, essentially, if it was
accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is scathing in his
assessment of Obama’s opposition to born-alive legislation.

“That’s pretty doctrinaire — that’s about as pro-death as
you can get on the abortion issue,” said Santorum. “He’s a candidate who is not
just for abortion, but also for infanticide in order to protect the right to
abortion.”

Santorum said Obama is continuing to affirm his embrace of
abortion on the campaign trail. He cited remarks the candidate made at a March
29 town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pa.

At that meeting, in response to a question about sex
education for children, Obama argued in favor of educating young children about
using contraceptives.

“Look, I’ve got two daughters, nine years old and six years
old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first of all about values and
morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Said Santorum, “To view a child as a punishment, under any
circumstances, to me shows that this is not a man who values life, who respects
the dignity of human life.”

Obama’s campaign office did not reply to questions about his
position on abortion and other life issues that the Register submitted by
e-mail.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that a child
has a right to be considered as a gift, now as a punishment:

“A child is not
something owed to one, but is a gift. … A child may not be considered a piece
of property, an idea to which an alleged ‘right to a child’ would lead. In this
area, only the child possesses genuine rights … [including] the right to be
respected as a person from the moment of his conception” (No. 2378).

Judges

O’Steen said Obama’s position on life issues is a stark
contrast to McCain’s. He noted that McCain has a 100% pro-life record on
abortion in the U.S. Senate, has voted against a Senate resolution to express
support for Roe v. Wade and has stated that he believes Roe should be reversed,
supports parental notification and opposes the use of taxpayer funds to
facilitate abortion.

Perhaps the most significant difference between Obama and
McCain is their position on judicial appointments. Obama has indicated that if
elected president he intends to make it a top priority to nominate pro-abortion
judges.

In contrast, in a speech May 6 at Wake Forest University,
McCain pledged to nominate only lawyers with “a proven commitment to judicial
restraint.” He attacked Obama’s “judicial activism” and was particularly
critical of the Democratic candidate for voting against the confirmation of
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

While McCain did not refer directly to abortion in his
speech, opposition among Senate Democrats to the Roberts and Alito nominations
centered largely on fears that if confirmed, the two judges might overturn Roe
v. Wade and other federal decisions supporting abortion rights.

Said McCain, “Somehow, by Sen. Obama’s standard, even Judge
Roberts didn’t measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently,
nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges,
lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it — and
they see it only in each other.”

In response to the speech, Obama’s campaign said McCain
would nominate judges who would threaten abortion rights, Associated Press
reported May 6.

“What’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect
the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves,” said Obama
spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Santorum, who earlier in the campaign cycle was critical of
McCain’s pro-life commitment primarily because the Arizona senator does not
oppose embryonic stem-cell research, said McCain’s speech “was a home run from
my perspective.”

Said Santorum,”It hit all the salient points, and it should
give a lot of comfort to pro-lifers.”

And Carlin said abortion is only one of a number of areas
where Obama, even more than Clinton, is advancing positions that appeal
primarily to the most liberal elements of the Democratic Party.

“His support is among the secularist wing of the Democratic
Party,” said Carlin, who teaches sociology and philosophy at the Community
College of Rhode Island. “He’s beholden to that wing of the party, the most
extreme wing of the party, the “moral left” of the party. And if they put him
in office, you know, ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’”

Added Carlin, “So I think if he gets elected as president,
it’s going to be a very, very bad time for pro-life Catholics.”

Tom McFeely is based

in Victoria, British Columbia.

Bishops: Abortion Matters Most

WASHINGTON — According to the U.S. bishops, Catholic voters should regard abortion as the “preeminent” issue in deciding which political candidates merit their support.

In the document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility From the Catholic Bishops of the United States,” which was updated last November, the U.S. bishops singled out abortion and euthanasia as “intrinsically evil” matters that “must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned” by Catholics.

According to the document, “Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed.” The document says Catholics should ask political candidates how they plan to “address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst — innocent unborn children — by restricting and bringing to an end to the destruction of unborn children through abortion.” The U.S. bishops stress that it’s wrong for Catholic voters to regard abortion as having the same moral weight as other issues when they are forming their consciences about how to vote. The revised “Faithful Citizenship document instructs against applying “a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many.”

In an interview with the Register when the document was released, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said, “That is the core of the document — that the obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.”